4.6 Article

Chemometric Analysis for Identification of Botanical Raw Materials for Pharmaceutical Use: A Case Study Using Panax notoginseng

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087462

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US FDA
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB518405]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The overall control of the quality of botanical drugs starts from the botanical raw material, continues through preparation of the botanical drug substance and culminates with the botanical drug product. Chromatographic and spectroscopic fingerprinting has been widely used as a tool for the quality control of herbal/botanical medicines. However, discussions are still on-going on whether a single technique provides adequate information to control the quality of botanical drugs. In this study, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid chromatography (UPLC), capillary electrophoresis (CE) and near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) were used to generate fingerprints of different plant parts of Panax notoginseng. The power of these chromatographic and spectroscopic techniques to evaluate the identity of botanical raw materials were further compared and investigated in light of the capability to distinguishing different parts of Panax notoginseng. Principal component analysis (PCA) and clustering results showed that samples were classified better when UPLC- and HPLC-based fingerprints were employed, which suggested that UPLC- and HPLC-based fingerprinting are superior to CE- and NIR-based fingerprinting. The UPLC- and HPLC-based fingerprinting with PCA were able to correctly distinguish between samples sourced from rhizomes and main root. Using chemometrics and its ability to distinguish between different plant parts could be a powerful tool to help assure the identity and quality of the botanical raw materials and to support the safety and efficacy of the botanical drug products.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available